1. They didn't say this person is guilty of rape because they had prior convictions/served jail in the past. Quote me that sentence if you believe it's the case. You're drawing your own stupid conclusions from evidence that isn't there.

2. Nothing said above would land the author in criminal court "in all of(?)" Europe. If you disagree, please quote the exact statutes she's broken and link it with the specific text that you think broke said statue(s). Until then, kindly STFU.

@mangemongen Ummm first off, CTFO (urbandictionary.com if you don't understand the acronym). I'm sorry you (Daveea?) were convicted of some felony, but I think if wait 7+ years it'll be off your record in some states.

Anyway, let's take some of your inane quotes in turn:

1. "Defamation of a person i pretty much definitely not legal in United States. It's even worse someone from a supposed journalist."

- Soo you're implying that stating someone's multiple felony convictions over half a decade (2009, 2012, etc.) upheld by a court of law and jury of his/her peers is "defamation"? And then you're trying to stir the pot MORE by saying it's a journalist? News flash: this is what journalists do for a living. They report on facts. The fact that you think anything the author said is remotely in the realm of defamation is LAUGHABLE. Honestly, go RTFM, consult a lawyer, or do whatever it is you think best and then come back and correct your whacky rant.

2. "The whole idea behind a criminal sentence is that when you've served you're time, past covictions can't be legally held against you as probable cause if you're ever suspected of another crime. See why accessing other past convictions is fucking bad."

- First off, believe you mean i) served *your (not you're time) and ii) to have ended your "See why..." sentence with a question mark? Second, we're not talking about legally holding something against anyone. We're talking about a journalist bringing up someone's multiple FELONY convictions and oh, probation violation WEEKS before assaulting a passenger he (you/your fellow criminal?) were entrusted to drive somewhere safely. Again, this is what journalists do -- they draw (likely) conclusions and let the public interpret them as they see fit.

3. "There are a few others but guess what, here as in every other instance ever it's rightfully serious crime for the Kindergarten that has express allowance and even requirement to check criminal records of applicants to ever leak that information to anyone else."

- Wrong. Just wrong. Criminal records are, as you astutely point out in the beginning of your rant, public knowledge. Anyone can look this up and thus there's no expectation of privacy here. Using the word "leak" is just silly and an obvious attempt to draw some conclusion that has no merit.

4. "The US police of removing more and more job markets for convicted felons is another foreshadowing."

- Do you mean "policy"? Or are the "police" removing jobs? The supply of labor is enormous and there's nothing wrong with corporations (or governments) excluding some body of people they feel are STATISTICALLY more likely to fail. It's just like requiring a college degree; sure, there are high school-only graduates that are perfectly qualified for some jobs, but odds are better that a college graduate is more qualified. It's called "market signaling" and it's taught in Econ 101 classes across the world. Maybe you sat in on one in your prison continuing education?

5. Comments inline on this abortion of a paragraph:

"You are probably smart enough yourself [sic/redundant] to understand that your own vile disregard for the privacy of others as swell [sic] as you're [sic] complete lack of respect for the fact that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. You've done a great service to who [sic/should be "whom" as subject of sentence] the fuck knows whom [sic, ibid.], all I know is it won't be you and defnintelly [sic] no more than maybe 0,000000001% [sic, lack of source] Americans as your [sic] slowy [sic] invalidate human rights which will only end when you wake up in a country where no one is protected from anything. Anarchy? Hope it turns out well for everyone involved."

"We haven’t made much money yet, but we haven’t really lost anything yet either."

=

We have absolutely ZERO deal flow and have no idea if it's because of absolutely inane comments like these submissions we send in to pandodaily instead of, you know, doing real due diligence. Probably it is, but meh .. let's write it instead because nobody wants our unsophisticated me-too fund to invest in them anyway.

While I respect Phil Zimmerman, I don't necessarily trust the ex-government team that he has assembled around him. Nor do I trust whomever made the decision to censor comments on their product (see above). Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they're all incredible patriots -- but patriots may be more inclined to side with the government they love so dearly when said government is at odds with their users. They claim "Silent Circle’s service offerings have no government-mandated backdoors." when they really should be saying something akin to "Silent Circle’s service offerings have no backdoors, government-mandated or otherwise."

Frankly, I just don't trust this phone. Nor do I trust the company behind it. What is needed is some EFF sponsored open source company with entirely open source client and server software. The problem is that this is expensive, so private companies will fill the gap. To get people to trust them, however, they really should play by the book that has been long established in this space: disclose, disclose, disclose.

@Steve_Schmid7 What on earth are you talking about? You want Facebook to turn itself into a charity? Or you think the government should force it to?

Newsflash: it would NEVER have hired all the people it did, acquired (read: injected wealth into) the companies/founders it did, contributed hugely to the local real estate boon, or provide a huge influx of consumption.

I think Facebook is a has-been company (in terms of mind share, thought leadership, etc.), but it's still got loads of cash. If you start comparing private companies competing in a capitalist economy to governments or charities, you've lost your mind. Without proper incentives, there is no Facebook and the aggregate economy is worse off.

@Erno@eismcsquare You sound like someone who just read securityfocus.com for the first time. Stating your preferences on Linux distributions and somehow trying to blindly indicate one is superior is no way to go through life. Come present some evidence -- hell, even anecdotes -- and maybe people won't dismiss your nonsense outright.

@DanielVincentKelley@guitarpunkjack Wah, wah, wahhhh. Someone call the wahhhbulance on you, you little twerp. And by you I of course mean @DanielVincentKelley. You are such a whiner. Why don't you start making progress *somewhere* instead of just complaining to whomever will listen?

Whoops, hit submit too soon and my Edit period expired. Here's what I meant to write:

These SpiderLabs guys sound like a bunch of amateurs with all of their mistakes/ill preparation. (I'm half way through the article anyway -- just scrolled down to see comments so far, maybe my opinion will change after finishing?)

If you want to read a more technical description of some analogous techniques, check out these two books (one includes a chapter from Fyodor of nmap fame):

These guys sound like a bunch of amateurs with all of their mistakes. (I'm half way through the article anyway -- just scrolled down to see comments so far, maybe my opinion will change after finishing?)

@juararetardino "Amazon has never made money and shows no prospects of making in in the future." <-- stupidest thing ever written.

Seriously, do you not get that Amazon could, in a moment's notice, flip a switch and be instantly MASSIVELY profitable? They invest almost every dollar that comes back in the door. Take this Apple fanboy's write-up for instance: http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/05/bezos-not-bozos/.

"The creators filed a whopping 80 patents in the process of building it."

You say it like that's a good thing. At least try to get a quote from her on how they're for defensive purposes only; she is, after all, the the former president of the EFF so I'm sure she'd be willing to weigh in!